The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
Cesare Beccaria, Italy, 1738-1794, author of "Of Crimes and Punishments", widely read by the founders of the United States.
This is the position of modern 2nd amendment proponents. It has been demonstrably true for centuries. Laws primarily affect those who obey them.
It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books. Bad guys are bad guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment